Re: [rights-requirements] Comments on Requirements version 16

[Cory Doctorow <cory@eff.org>]

> I made the point of acknowledging expressed positions and pointing out 
> that there are some very different policies and opinions in these 
> areas (e.g., IP policy and copyright). I am sure you whole-heartedly 
> believe that your position is the right one, but to deny that 
> significant differences of opinions exist both within this group (and, 
> more importantly, outside of it) is not representative of the reality.

The basis of copyright is set out in the constitution, and it is to 
promote the useful arts and sciences. There is an enormous corpus of 
learned work in support of this.

IOW, the position that copyright exists to protect rightsholders 
interests -- and not to promote the useful arts and science -- is one 
that is factually incorrect.

> While I have my opinions - just like everybody else here - I was 
> careful to not label anybody else's as "outrageous".

I apologize. For "outrageous," please read "factually incorrect."

> You can pick on any specific words or expressions that I used or 
> assign implications that were not there, but my main point was that we 
> are not in agreement on the scope and policy, we are not making much 
> progress and continue to debate the same issues over and over again. 
> So I will repeat this point again: If after all these months we can't 
> agree on some basic framework - why are we continuing this  charade?

I'm involved because the group asked me to be, when it set out its 
charter, which said that it was going to build a standard that 
reflected the needs of the diverse interests in technology and 
copyright.

I'm involved because I believe that if systems like this are developed 
in such a way as to undermine the future development of fair use (by 
proscribing all uses not permitted and thus removing the power of the 
courts and congress ot adjust the scope of fair use to reflect new 
technological and social realities), that we will be allowing the law 
to be supplanted by adhesion contracts and unilateral "business rules."